User talk:Checco

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

For older talks see:

Can we have your opinion here?[edit]

Hi Checco, you are an expert of the Italian politics, and we are deciding which image should be better, for Matteo Renzi. Can you give us your opinion about it? Thank you. -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Nick, the two images are both OK with me and I have no preference. As I already told you, please don't ask me such questions through my user talk anyomre. Sorry if I'm rough, but I already explained to you why it is better to avoid such talks. Thanks! --Checco (talk) 14:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Number of Italian senators[edit]

Hi Checco, I have a question for you. I know that the number of Senators in the Italian Senate is 315, but when I searched on the official site of the Senate to do a graph about the composition of the groups, I saw that the number of Senators (except for the Senators for Life) was 320. Do you know why the number of Senators has changed? -- Nick.mon (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Nick! The number of elected senators has not changed. 320 includes also the five senators for life. Two of them (Ciampi and Piano) sit in the Mixed Group, other two (Cattaneo and Rubbia) in the Autonomies Group, a fifth (Monti) with Civic Choice. --Checco (talk) 17:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Ok thank you very much! So I misunderstood the composition of the group. Do you think I should upload another version of this file with 315 senators? -- Nick.mon (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Do what you want. In the infoboxes on parties we usually include only the elected senators, but it is not a mistake to include senators for life in the the graph. BTW what do you mean with "recomposition"? Bye, --Checco (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Ok I will decide. No sorry is a mistake, I would say "composition". Anyway I will wait if other Five Star senators will leave their party. Than I will upload it correctly. Bye -- Nick.mon (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Italian parties[edit]

Siccome immagino che tu sia italiano ritengo inutile parlarti in inglese: ci sono alcune tue modifiche a mio avviso sono prive di fondamento! Ti ostini a dire che Gragani è dell'Udc e che Popolari per l'Europa comprende la stessa Udc, appare evidente che tu sia rimasto indietro con le notizie, se tu guardassi il sito del Partito Popolare Europeo ti accorgeresti che la delegazione Popolari per l'Europa comprende solo Gargani e Potito Salatto: Popolari per l'Europa è solo un'associazione ma i suoi due aderenti hanno aderito a Popolari per l'Italia, in quanto entrambi hanno partecipato al congresso ed espresso la loro adesione al partito, Gargani ha aderito solo tempreaneamente all'Udc. In Forza Italia ho capito che consideri anche Mastella e Antinoro europarlametari di quel partito, ma sempre nello stesso sito vedresti che entrambi non fanno parte della delegazione di FI e si dichiarano il primo dell'Udeur e il secondo ancora dell'Udc. In pratica nell'Europarlamento sono in 15 a dichiararsi rappresentanti di Forza Italia, 14 nel Ppe e una nei conservatori europei. Prima l'Italia di Alemanno non è un partito, il sito stesso dice che si tratta di un'associazione politica, è un termine più ampio rispetto al partito in senso stretto. Ancora: dici che Autonomia Sud è compresa in Realtà Italia, invece sono due sono partiti distinti che hanno stipulato un patto federativo ([1]). Io invece mi sono sbagliato a dire che sono partiti regionali esclusivi di Campania e Basilicata perché sono presenti anche in altre regioni meridionali. Infine: Per l'Italia NON è assolutamente un partito: Come fai a dire che un mero gruppo parlamentare è un partito??? Quest'ultimo è sicuramente l'errore più grave, sono 2 cose diverse, non puoi non saperlo, quello è un template solo per partiti in quanto tali! Ti sarei grato se abbandonassi un attimo questo tuo atteggiamento sulle pagine di politica italiana in inglese ed avere un atteggiamento un po' più collaborativo con gli altri utenti che cercano di collaborare, non puoi annullare tutte le modifiche degli altri per partito preso, ok?--Maremmano (talk) 22:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Maremmano, I'm going to answer to you in English because this is en.Wikipedia and we need to use English for the sake of other users, who might be interested in our talks. Secondly, it is better to raise these issues in the article's talks, so that other users can say their opinion too (as they had already done in some cases, including the issue you raised on PpI's MEPs). I did not rollback each and every edit you did (I even thanked you for one of them), but only those I did not agree with, those which were misguided and those lacking consensus. Please be careful with moves, take care of all the double redirects generated by your moves (if those moves are accepted by other users), restrain from repeating edits over and over and, more important, seek consensus through article's talks (not user's talks). In short:
  • Populars for Europe is a grouping within the EPP group including UdC, PpI (fomerly FLI) and SVP MEPs (there are sources for that, there was even a talk on that in the PpI article's talk, Italian MEPs' pages are not always updated for several reasons, etc.).
  • Gargani is definitely a member of the UdC (read the above mentioned PpI article's talk).
  • Please do not confuse Italian journalistic/political terms (like movimento or associazione) with political science—and please consider that parliamentary groups are by definition political parties, as parties can be only parliamentary (I understand that having For Italy in the parties' template could be redundant or even wrong for you, but I think it is useful for readers to know that the UdC and the PpI are in close relationship in the Italian Parliament).
  • Reality Italy is a minor national party as it is active in more than three regions; it's OK to classify Autonomy South as a Campania-only party.
Please do not answer to me here, but in article's talks. I will discuss with you only there for the sake of other users. --Checco (talk) 15:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Regional Council[edit]

Hi Checco, I know that you talked about it many months ago (maybe years), but I really don't understand why we should not insert the seats of each parties in the Regional Councils as all other parties all over the world here in en.Wiki. Thank you for your attention. -- Nick.mon (talk) 19:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I was just writing to you. You know why I oppose the thing, and I explained it to you again in your talk page. --Checco (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Ok you are right, probably you have just told me some months ago, but I think it is still a good thing. I took that data from it.Wiki I don't invent anything. I hope that data from it.Wiki are correct. Anyway I will not do it again, but I remain by my ideas, no to insert the seats of Regional Councils is a mistake. Parties from France, Spain, UK, Brazil, from all over the world have the Regional Councils' seats, I don't understand why Italian ones must not have it. -- Nick.mon (talk) 20:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
It.Wiki is not a reliable source and, in fact, there is no official source tracking all the movements of regional councillors (it is already difficult to do it with MPs and MEPs!). However, as I told you many times, the main reason why I think the number of regional councillors is a redundant, unrelevant and deceptive information is that their number is quite disproportionate among regions. Thanks for your honesty. Good night, --Checco (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Ok but the last one according to me, is not a good reason. In every country there are regions with more councilors than other ones, or maybe I think so. I still don't understand. Anyway I will not insert anymore the seats. -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Lega Nord[edit]

Hi Checco, I have a question for you: What do you think about the new "trend" that Salvini is giving to Lega Nord? Do you think that LN will do well in the European election? I would like to listen to your opinion about that, because I saw that LN is growing in the polls, and I think that they will probably do better than in the general election of the past year. What do you think? Thanks for you attention. -- Nick.mon (talk) 12:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Salvini's "movimentism", his participation to several talk shows, new communication techniques, the big issue of basta Euro (30-40% of Italians oppose the Euro and LN is basically the only mainstream party clearly against it) and low turnout will all contribute to a strong showing of LN in the election. Thanks to the "anti-Euro" vote and the referendums the party is proposing, LN might even take more votes than usual in the South. It is too early to make predictions, but I'm quite sure the party will pass the 4% threshold and could even reach 6% of the vote. Salvini's new course, including the new alliance the party will form in the European Parliament, has a lot to do with the EP election, less with a durable change in the party's ideology. More generally, I think that LN has saved itself once again from political death (for reasons which are a bit obscure to me) and its nature of catch-all party has been re-launched. --Checco (talk) 12:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, after all the scandals of the Bossi's family and the "magic circle" Salvini succeeded in giving to LN a new style, and you know, in Italy people quickly forgotten. Anyway I think that LN will enter in the European Parliament and I think that it can regain lot of votes that it had lost in February elections in favor of the M5S, especially in the North-East. And Salvini is also very active in the affair of the Venetian secessionists who had been arrested a week ago. -- Nick.mon (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Two questions[edit]

  1. If the article is a little bit awkward in English, Democrats of the Left must be moved to Democrats of Left and Federation of the Greens to Federation of Greens.
  2. You created the page Socialist Party (Italy, 2007–08) but this party doesn't exist. This page regards The New PSI and The Italian Socialist Party (2007), It should be deleted--Maremmano (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  1. I shared your doubts seven or eight years ago, but it seems that terms like "Centre", "Left", etc. are always preceded by articles in English. Anyway, I don't think it would be wise to move articles with such established titles, unless those titles are completely wrong.
  2. The party was a split from the New PSI and was active between 2007 and 2008, thus why should we delete it?
As I told you before, please edit articles' talk pages and, in case, link here just the threads you opened. Thanks, --Checco (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
There is a source about the existence of this Socialist Party? I know that De Michelis joined directly to Socialist Party (Italy, 2007). I haven't found sources about this party. However the discussion is there (Talk:Socialist Party (Italy, 2007–08))--Maremmano (talk) 21:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I think you understand that a party without any source cannot be considered encyclopedic, therefore I have required a speedy deletion for this page--Maremmano (talk) 14:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Other questions about the italian parties[edit]

Hi, I have to say/ask you other things about the italian parties:

  1. You said that "it seems that terms like Centre, Left, etc. are always preceded by articles in English", but can be moved Federation of the Greens to Federation of Greens?
  2. I've seen that you write only "Lega" in the template for the regional sections of the Lega Nord, but "Lega Nord+region" isn't a long name therefore it is correct, in the same template there are more longer names of parties. The only word "Lega" can be confusing.
  3. I've also seen that you moved League for Autonomy - Lombard Alliance to Lega Alpina Lumbarda, but the Lega Alpina is a former party, these parties require two different pages...--Maremmano (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

As I told you before, I would like you to open similar threads directly at the articles' talks. However, here are my answers:

  1. "Federation of the Greens" is the literal translation of Federazione dei Verdi and is perfectly OK in English, thus why should we move it?
  2. As we have "Lega Lombarda" and "Liga Veneta", we could easily have "Lega Piemont", "Lega Liguria", etc. I know that the template includes longer names for some parties, but not everyone of them can be easily shortened.
  3. The party's original and most recent name is Lega Alpina Lumbarda, that is why I moved the article (you had moved without consensus to "League for Autonomy - Lombard Alliance") to that name. We could have two different pages (Lega Alpina Lumbarda and Lega Alleanza Lombarda or Lega per l'Autonomia), but I'm not sure it would be a good idea as we're talking about the same party, which merely changed its name.

--Checco (talk) 05:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Also Movement for Autonomies is the literal translation of Movimento per le Autonomie. Lega Lombarda and Liga Veneta are correct, but the others regional sections have also the word Nord in their name, these names aren't long and the name Lega Nord is yet written in the template, the names with only the word "Lega" are wrong and unused. Finally, the "League for Autonomy - Lombard Alliance" was the result of the fusion between "Lega Alpina Lumbarda" and "Autonomia Alleanza Lombarda". The name Lega Alpina Limbarda is only used in 2009 by LAL, but the actual name remains "Lega per l'Autonomia-Alleanza Lombarda-Lega Pensionati".
I have written in your talk page because it is more practical for some things--Maremmano (talk) 23:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I know there are some inconstincies in articles' names. Some names have been adopted or moved without my consensus (that's the case of "Movement for Autonomies"). Please open threads in the articles' talk pages and, if you want my comment there, just link those talks here. --Checco (talk) 07:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
About the template, where is established that the Lega Nord's regional sections have to be written without the word "Nord"? If there isn't a discussion, these names are your inventions. If you don't show me the discussion that establishes these names, the more correct names are the original ones!--Maremmano (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
"Established version" means that it has been that way for a long time. I already told you why I support that version. --Checco (talk) 14:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry but you can not decide all by yourself, these names are invented, I have to cancel your last edit, the original names prevail on short invented names--Maremmano (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
The discussion about the name of the Mpa is here--Maremmano (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Have you the consensus to enter invented names in the template? It isn't important if it is an "Established version" but the names are wrong. Your edits are not better than my, you have to require the consensus in the talk page for these invented names, otherwise the original names have to prevail--Maremmano (talk) 14:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
If you disagree, open a thread in the related talk page. Thanks, --Checco (talk) 14:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
You know that no one will act in a discussion in the Talk page, but the invencted names can't be remain in the template!!--Maremmano (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

DC color[edit]

Hi Checco, I would ask you something; do you know why and who decided the color for the Christian Democracy? I know, white which is the "official color" (Balena bianca), is not possible, but maybe a lightskyblue should be better than yellow. I just like to know why they chose that color. Thank you very much! -- Nick.mon (talk), 13 May 2014, 19:03 (UTC)

I have no idea and I agree with you: lightskyblue (or, better, a darker blue as that of DC's last symbol) would be much better than yellow. If there is a place where people are discussing on this or you open a discussion, please let me know. --Checco (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes I think that or lightskyblue or the blue also used for Italian People's Party (1919) is the best one. Maybe I can edit it and than if someone doesn't agree we will discuss about it. -- Nick.mon (talk), 14 May 2014, 15:39 (UTC)
Sure. The PPI 1919's color is the best and I would use it also for the PPI 1994. --Checco (talk) 16:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I tried many times which color, in my view should be the best one, and I chose at the end, the lightskyblue, even if I think that also the one of the PPI was very good, but it make confusion with the one of the PLI, and so I decided to use the lightskyblue. Of course if you and other users think that PPI's color is better we will change it even if I have already edit all the elections maps and parliament diagrams with the new color! -- Nick.mon (talk), 15 May 2014, 19:57 (UTC)

Ma che fai?[edit]

Checco, ma perchè fai così? Io a questo punto sto cominciando a chiedermi se ci sei o ci fai! Questa volta voglio parlarti in italiano, tanto è una talk page personale e possiamo parlare in che lingua ci pare, nessuno ci viene a dire nulla, ormai è chiaro che in inglese non riusciamo proprio a capirci. Sono davvero stupefatto dai tuoi ultimi interventi, un utente con la tua esperienza dovrebbe conoscerle bene le regole di wikipedia, dovresti sapere che le ricerche originali sono proibite e che le informazioni inserite devono essere dimostrate dalle fonti. Ho come l'idea che tu ormai ti senta un pò il padrone delle pagine sulla politica italiana. Sostieni delle fantasiose teorie ma quando ti chiedo di dimostrarle con le fonti tu non lo fai. Parli di "scienza politica", dici che en.Wikipedia aderisce a stantard europei/internazionale (come se l'Italia ne fosse esclusa), ma è la stessa en.Wikipedia a distingure tra Political party e Parliamentary group/Parliamentari party!!! Tu ti basi solo su una teoria dottrinale, ma dove sta scritto che Wikipedia deve basarsi sulle teorie dottrinali? Da nessuna parte, perché Wikipedia distingue giustamente tra gruppi parlamentari e partiti politici, come ti ho già dimostrato. Ti ho anche dimostrato che questi "parliamentary party" sono considerati solo gruppi parlamentari da Wikipedia, prova tangibile che Wikipedia non aderisce alle teorie dottrinali che tu hai citato! E soprattutto tu non ti puoi ostinare a dire che i Federalisti e Liberaldemocratici erano un partito se questa cosa non c'è scritta da nessuna parte, LE RICERCHE ORIGINALI SU WIKIPEDIA SONO VIETATE, tu dovresti saperlo! Al contrario io ho dimostrato con le fonti che erano solo un gruppo parlamentare (al quale aderivano partiti come Unione di Centro e Federalisti Liberali). Te ne approfitti perchè non c'è nessuno che controlla queste pagine, ma se tu non mi dimostri con le fonti quello che dici io ho tutto il diritto di annullare questi tuoi interventi, perchè se un utente non ha le fonti e uno le ha, prevale per forza quest'ultimo, queste sono le regole basilari di Wikipedia, non fingere di non saperlo, un utente esperto come te lo sa per forza! Continui a ripetere che non ho il consenso per fare certe modifiche, ma tu sei appoggiato solo da un tuo alleato virtuale non dimostrando però che Wikipedia aderisce a certe idee, io invece le mie ragioni te le ho dimostrato in tutti i modi. Le fonti su Wikipedia sono essenziali, su una fonte può prevalere solo un'altra fonte più affidabile, non puoi approfittarti del fatto che attualmente siamo solo in tre gatti a contribuire a queste pagine. A volte bisogna ammettere di sbagliare, io lo ammetto che certe volte ho sbagliato (per esempio sulla breve edit war della pagina Populars for Italy avevi ragione tu). Infine sono rimasto abbastanza stupito quando ho visto che hai spostato Fortza Paris a Fortza Paris - Partito del Popolo Sardo, un nome completamente sbagliato e senza mezza fonte. Ti invito al dialogo, ti prego questa volta di rispondermi in italiano sulla mia talk page, nelle nostre pagine di discussione personali si può fare, voglio chiarire con te una volta per tutte questa cosa e se continuiamo a parlarci in inglese sarebbe un dialogo tra sordi. Ciao--Maremmano (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I am very sorry to disappoint you, but I don't like the idea of using Italian in en.Wikipedia (everything we write here is public, otherewise you would have used personal email). I find a little bit difficult to comunicate with Italians—and language is not the problem. You know what, the main reason why I contribute to en.Wiki is that here there is a wider agreement on (and knowledge of) political/politological concepts, terms, standards, etc. Italians are usually very confused on these issues. Just think about all those people, including politicians and journalists, who keep saying that the M5S (or LN for that matter) is not a party, but a "movement"!
On the "political party v. parliamentary group" issue, I continue to think that you don't understand the basic notions of political science. A Wikipedia article can never be a source for another Wikipedia article, but let's take for good the defintion of "political party" contained in the article on the subject: isn't "organization of people which seeks to achieve goals common to its members through the acquisition and exercise of political power" a definition which includes also the FLD? That's what I think and also Autospark tried to explain this to you. I'm sorry about that, but I can't appease you everytime.
This said, I really appreciate your words and your new attitude to discussion. Pages on Italian politics are not my property, but I'm free to support my views and urge you to seek consensus through talk pages. On some issues I agree with you, on others I don't. Neither you nor I is the custodian or the depository of truth. I love to discuss, but I think we should spend more energies in improving pages instead of wasting them for technical issues (otherwise, en.Wiki would become the same as it.Wiki: that would be the best way for convincing me not to contribute anymore). Your knowledge and insights are exceptionally useful for en.Wiki and I'm happy that you are willing to share them, along with your time. Let's try to find common ground on the single issues, but please pay more attention to customs and European politological standards and be more respectful for established customs and the work other users have done. --Checco (talk) 08:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
If we spoke in Italian it was better. Following your reasoning Popolo e Territorio, Coesione Nazionale, Sinistra Indipendente (I repeat: INDIPENDENTE), Per le Autonomie-SVP-MAIE are parties! You haven't understood the great difference between Parties and groups, the italian standards are identical to international standards, how can you not understand? Why makes Wikipedia a distinction between Political parties and political groups if they are the same thing?--Maremmano (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this is en.Wiki, thus English is used here. It seems like you are confusing political parties, which can be parliamentary-only (as in the case of the FLD) or, for that matter, extra-parliamentary (there are even parties which don't participate in elections), with parliamentary groups/parties. I perfectly understand your point, but I still think there is a difference from the FLD and the other cases you mentioned. Finally, let me tell you once again that this is not the place for such a discussion; please use Talk:List of political parties in Italy or other talk pages. See you there, --Checco (talk) 08:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
The FLD is an identical case to the groups mentioned. Or we put all group (that for you are the same thing of parties) or we don't put anyone--Maremmano (talk) 22:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


Ciao, sono momentaneamente tornato (in effetti solo sulla pagina per le elezioni europee), spero vada tutto bene, ovviamente parlo di qua visto che non avevamo rapporti personali e non mi vorrei fare i fatti tuoi. --Francomemoria (talk) 23:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, it's great to hear from you! You disappeared from one day to another and I even thought something bad had happened to you... Welcome back. Everything is good and, as you see, I edit virtually only en.Wiki now. --Checco (talk) 13:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Democratic Party[edit]

Scusa ma io credo che dovremmo inserire le ideologie third way e progressismo nella pagina del PD. Penso sia il tempo di parlare di questo almeno qui visto che l'ultima talk è stata a Gennaio e con poca gente. Dimmi un po' che ne pensi Barjimoa (Talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Please excuse me if I answer to you in English, but this is en.Wikipedia and all the public talks should be intelligible by English speakers. I disagree with you: I think that both "third way" and "progressivism" are generic terms, already included and implied by "social democracy". --Checco (talk) 08:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


Ciao Checco. Scusa se ti scrivo qui, e non sulla wiki italiana, ma c'è un problema riguardo alla possibile occultazione di questo messaggio. Mi sento più sicuro a scriverti qui. Posso chiederti cosa pensi riguardo a questo. Lo chiedo a te perchè ho visto che la pensi un po come me, e forse puoi fare qualcosa a riguardo. Il problema è che ci sono degli utenti (uno in particolare) che fanno di tutto per oscurare l'argomento lasciando la pagina in uno stato poco decoroso, anche utilizzando i poteri di cui sono stati investiti dalla comunità; Io ho già fatto più di una modifica a riguardo, tutte rollbackate da un solo utente, ed una volta ho scritto una pagina su un argomento collegato ad esso, ed è stata derisa e ridicolizzata da tutti (poi cancellata). grazie per l'attenzione, che spero tu voglia dare a cio.-- (talk) 14:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

E scusa se ti scrivo in italiano. Rispondimi pure in inglese, se vuoi, ma ti chiedo solo di farlo in questa pagina. -- (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I fully agree with you and the next time I come to it.Wiki I will write something in your support. --Checco (talk) 11:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I begin to think that what you write is not highly regarded in the discussions, but that is just a voice which no one wants to give importance. I advised the Veneto and Politica projects, I also tried to start a Vaglio, but nothing. I'm glad that at least this version is cleaner than the Italian one, and that here we do not use the powers in an authoritarian manner (I refer to the admins). Ciao toso, te ringrassio. -- (talk) 12:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

NCD Veneto Autonomo[edit]

Hi Checco, I don't really understand why you created the page New Centre-Right Autonomous Veneto, the sources say only that the party will add "Veneto Autonomo" in its name for the group in the regional council and for the regional election, but there isn't a real reason to create a page for this, it is a simple regional section of NCD... --Maremmano (talk) 15:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, as usual I'm going to answer to you in the article's talk page. --Checco (talk) 08:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Euskal Herria Bildu[edit]

Hello Checco,

An article that you have been involved in editing, Euskal Herria Bildu, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you and kind regards. RJFF (talk) 10:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Do not invent translations of political party names[edit]

Please do not invent english translations for party names in other languages. If mainstream media does not agree to use an english name, we are not allowed to invent one. Please read here. Thanks.--Sajoch (talk) 06:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Au contraire. The general principle is to translate all party names into English. An exception is done in cases when the native name is overwhelmingly used in English-language media (like Sinn Fein, BJP, etc). --Soman (talk) 08:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Big difference: we should not translate names, but only use the translations where they exist. In fact, for the party I referred to ("Die Freiheitlichen"), the english-language media always uses the native name.--Sajoch (talk) 08:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Fruili template[edit]

I have already history-merged Template:Country data Friuli-Venezia Giulia (with hyphen) to Template:Country data Friuli–Venezia Giulia (with dash). If your computer is still showing "please delete" boxes in it, that is due to lag in flushing buffers in the system that handles buffering of pages which transclude templates. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

No, you hadn't (hyphens!), but I was able to do it by myself a couple of minutes ago. --Checco (talk) 11:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Elections in Veneto
added a link pointing to Union of the Centre
Provincial elections in Veneto
added a link pointing to Union of the Centre

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

A new group?[edit]

Hi Checco, I saw in it.Wikipedia in the page about the XVII Legislatura that they wrote about a new parliamentary group in the two Houses, the Costituente Popolare, formed by NCD and For Italy, do you think it is correct? Or better, they have already founded it? And should we create a new page? Thank you -- Nick.mon (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Nick, we surely need an article, but let's wait until the group is listed either in the Senate's website or the Chamber's website. Regarding the possible name for the article, I would choose between "Popular Constituent Assembly" or "People's Constituent Assembly". --Checco (talk) 14:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Ps: But will it be a gruppo in its own right or just an intergruppo? We need a new article only in the first case.
Ok let's wait until the the group will be listed in the Senate's website. Sorry but I don't know, anyway ai think it wikl be a gruppo. When we will have the official name we will choose the translation and I will upload a new version of the Parliament's graph.-- Nick.mon (talk) 14:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


Hi, the Italian flag (which only a small proportion of users would ever be able to distinguish as such) comes directly after the word "Italy". It appears to be simply decorative, which the style guides discourage. Is there are reason to retain it? Tony (talk) 03:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I suppose that "Benečija" should be written too back to the other historical names for the Veneto region[edit]

Slovenians had an influence on Veneto in ancient times, during the duchy of Carantania, so I suppose that for a respect to the history of Slovenia "Benečija" should be written back to the other names for the historical names of the region. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristijan Đorđević (talkcontribs) 03:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox Italian former political party[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Infobox Italian former political party has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Democratic Party (Italy) color[edit]

Hi Checco, sorry if I write you here, but I think that we need your opinion on this page. We are discussing about the color which must be used for the Democratic Party. I supported the one currently used, which is red, because it is used in rallies, in the symbol and in the PD Assembly and is also more appropriate for a social democratic party; the other user instead support the use of orange, because red was used by DS and the PD was not formed only by that party. Moreover he said that orange is used in the website of the Senate, but I don't think that parties' color should be choose from the site of an House of the Parliament, and in these site parties like NCD or Civic Choice are in purple and black (which are not absolutley their colors). So it will be great if you can give us your opinion, because you are on of the main contributors concerning politics. Thanks -- Nick.mon (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Now he have reached an agreement changing the colors of PDS and DS, anyway if you want express your opinion it would be great! -- Nick.mon (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Next time, why don't you mention the discussion at Talk:Democratic Party (Italy)? --Checco (talk) 08:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes you are right, but the user started the discussion there and we continued to discuss on the meta/color talk page, anyway it should be better if we discussed on the talk page of the PD. Thank you and have a good day! -- Nick.mon (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Us with Salvini and populism[edit]

Hi Checco, how are you? In my view the party NcS can be considered populist, as its northern counterpart, but as we discussed for many times not right-wing populist. Anyway I don't understand why we could not cite populism in the ideology. Thank you for your opinion! -- Nick.mon (talk) 21:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have another question for you, not about NcS...look at this page Next Italian general election in the section "Parties and leaders", or to all the others about elections, why party's color near to the names are so big? I hope you understand what I mean :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 10:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Uhm, no, I did not understand what you meant to say and the table seems to me all right.
On the first question, I will discuss on the issue on the article's talk page (when I will have time) and, as I told you many times before, I ask you to please not ask me questions of public interest in this talk, but to use the articles' talk pages. Otherwise, use the email. Thanks, --Checco (talk) 09:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Italian regional elections, 2015, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Enrico Rossi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sergio Berlato, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cina (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated[edit]

Hi, I'm Mecnunsaskin. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Elisa De Berti, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Mecnunsaskin (talk) 14:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)